Talk:Dragon Age (tabletop RPG)
Pen? PenCIL I've always had a real problem with the term "Pen & Paper". Who in their right mind uses a pen to play P&P RPGs? It's a blatant misnomer. :) --XavierGrimwand 17:07, 7 May 2009 (UTC) Well, that is what it's called on the DAO website. BorderlineWaxwork 19:40, 7 May 2009 (UTC) :Firstly, I was attempting to be humorous. And secondly, BioWare isn't always correct. ;) :--XavierGrimwand 21:27, 7 May 2009 (UTC) Oh okay, sorry Chuck. And no they aren't, but it is still what it's been called. Anyway, it's rather irrelevant because I doubt they'll still be calling it the 'Dragon Age: Pen and Paper RPG' when it's released. BorderlineWaxwork 06:42, 8 May 2009 (UTC) Availability Any Word on when this should be released or if it's even still in the works? I would love me some D&D style DA:O Da'Bardman 20:31, January 27, 2010 (UTC) It is in stores now. AusJeb 15:29, March 2, 2010 (UTC) Fan Materials Any interest in added fan-generated materials for the tabletop RPG to this wiki? AusJeb 15:29, March 2, 2010 (UTC) :Green Ronin has it's own Forums and Fan site for such. You may enjoy browsing and adding there. Ozena Lyn (talk) 14:42, December 17, 2010 (UTC) Table Top RPG The publisher, Green Ronin, has it labeled as "table top" RPG, but I think Pencil and Paper is definately more correct than Pen...perhaps an edit there? It shipped to stores in early June. The game play is very simple. I was a D&D player in my youth, but never DM a game before. I was able to pick this up, read the books, and run a game for middle school students with minimal difficulty. I think children younger than 14, with the attention span needed to follow this sort of game, can easily enjoy this adventure. We had an 8yo "apprentice" who followed the story line and captured more detail than some of the older children. Overall, a very enjoyable introductory adventure. Using the free character generator from the BioWare forums really cuts down on character setup and makes moving into the actual game faster as well. Ozena Lyn (talk) 11:44, June 10, 2010 (UTC) :So you're suggesting a page move to either "Dragon Age (tabletop RPG)" or "Dragon Age (pencil and paper RPG)"? I probably prefer tabletop myself, but can go with either if we get consensus. I hope you keep having fun with it! :Also I remember uploading this picture ages ago for this page, but I don't where it fits in. Are you able to help? 00:32, June 11, 2010 (UTC) : : :If it was me, I'd rename it "table top RPG" and maybe note in parenthesis (pencil & paper) for clarification. : :I've not seen that picture, it's not the box or the books I've got...but it's lovely...wonder if it was concept art, or a collector's edition...or game book 1 that's not out yet. The adventure book is to have 3 full length adventures and 3 adventure outlines. I'd so love to have a book that looked that nice! Ozena Lyn (talk) 00:43, June 11, 2010 (UTC) I don't know if this discussion is worth bringing up again, but I think that Dragon Age (tabletop RPG) would be the correct name and also a better name, being shorter and all. --Davilimap (talk) 04:19, May 13, 2013 (UTC) ::That's possible. Feel free to add a move candidate on the page in order to start the voting process. 09:44, May 13, 2013 (UTC) Beta Test-Rule Set 2 Green Ronin has available on it's website forums the Beta Test for Rule Set 2. I wanted to post a note just in case there were other Table Top players that hang out here, instead of there, like I do. Happy download and reading. Ozena Lyn (talk) 10:38, October 5, 2010 (UTC) Question from a Wikia contributor I Have a wonder in this wiki of plunder I saw a book that my Eye doth Sunder but I where can I buy this book in which I hunger?Shadow0fnight (I copied the Elder oak on this one but the qustion still stands) Moved your question to the talk zone off the info page :) Ozena Lyn (talk) 14:41, December 17, 2010 (UTC) Dalish Curse Glad to see the note about how Mythal is incorrectly identified as the god of vengeance (Mythallen should really be named "Elgar'nanlen"), but what about his minions? They're referred to as "darkspawn", even though they seem to be the result of "corruption" from the abomination. The Revengers are even noted as "Rage Darkspawn". Is it just a very consistent error, or from earlier DA:O notes? There are other little things, like the Chant being called "the Song", that make me think the latter is possible. - Wandrew (talk) 09:44, July 8, 2013 (UTC) Not Canon Green Ronin has officially stated that while they are fully licensed, they are not canon. DaBarkspawn (talk) 14:40, October 31, 2019 (UTC) :Thank you for providing this important update. :If there is no objection, I would like to remove all non-canon sources from the wiki. 18:43, October 31, 2019 (UTC) ::No issue here. ::Support. DaBarkspawn (talk) 18:55, October 31, 2019 (UTC) ::It seems like an awful lot of useful and interesting info to just delete. My suggestion would be that any non-canon info be included but in a separate section or with a tag identifying it as non-canon. So much work has been put in to add it to the wiki. Why should all that work be destroyed or nullified? --HolyGuardian80 (talk) 00:25, November 1, 2019 (UTC) :::So, the main reason that game wikis (for example, TES wiki is also like this) stick to "canon" is not from some sense of utility, but because once we include one non-canon thing, it opens the door of precedence to all kinds of other non-canon things. Eventually, we wind up hosting fanfic and other random things. Wikis change over time, and yes, work put in is sometimes undone. I suggest you review the work I put into Wicked Eyes and Wicked Hearts and compare the page to how it is now - great deal of what I did there was later undone. DaBarkspawn (talk) 01:28, November 1, 2019 (UTC) ::::Thank you for your kind and thoughtful response. I trust you all to make good choices. Best, --HolyGuardian80 (talk) 02:05, November 1, 2019 (UTC) I'm very much in the camp of sticking to canonical materials. Much of the info in the RPG books is downright contradictory to canon lore. Sir Insomnius (talk) To clarify, my intention is to remove the lore surrounding the events that this RPG provides, nothing else. 09:18, November 2, 2019 (UTC) :Because what it actually says is "We give the player information on various location, characters and mosnters that come from Bioware...and let the player take it from here." It seems to refer to the development of events in individual sessions on the tabletop not being canon, not the settings or npcs or monsters themselves If we're going to adopt viktoria's "slash and burn" solution we also run into greater issues: Take the Gell Lendon article for instance, that is a tabletop character but Gell Lendon is mentioned as the arl of edgehall (another tabletop location) in two of the comic series. His mere existence directly recalls one of the pre-designed tabletop adventures. Now, do we strike these off as viktoria says, or do we keep them? And of course, that's just the start of the quagmire if we take the maximalist interpretation some here to seem be arguing for. Another source of conflict would be the "Heroes of Dragon Age" images (many of which you yourself have uploaded viktoria). Their status as canonical depictions of characters and creatures is highly dubious at best. I share your concern for keeping out non-canon materials but I think there is a huge gap between official bioware materials and fan-fic crap. If we were proposing hosting actual crap some random git thought up on their own while playing the tabletop, I'd quite agree. But that's not what we're talking about here. I personally still hold to my original belief that the bioware license is where we should draw the line. - 09:23, November 3, 2019 (UTC) :I am surprised that even the e-mail by the publisher is not enough for you. At this point I don't think any proof will convince you. :Even if you have doubts, the encyclopaedic approach is that we should always err on the side caution than make the mistake of presenting falsehoods on the wiki. 09:59, November 3, 2019 (UTC) ::Because the statement from them is incredibly poorly worded? It seems to at least be referring to none of the events derived from player agency, (outcomes outside the manual etc., random character appearances, changes in history) being non-canon. Which everyone agreed on to begin with. If you had an e-mail that said "Literally nothing we put in is canon" I would readily agree but instead we got a statement that says "Nothing is canon! But also all our characters, locations and monsters are just from bioware." The obvious end point of which would be that none of bioware's own material are canon to their own universe - 10:45, November 3, 2019 (UTC) :::I am now of mixed feelings. On one hand, I believe that when Dylan Templar wrote "none of it is canon", the 'it' refers to the RPG as a whole. I think that is the plain reading of that sentence. On the other hand, the fact that Bioware effective canonized RPG characters by putting them into the comic books is giving me grounds for pause. I am now leaning towards removing RPG lore that is not so canonized, but that seems like a very hacky and special cased rule. DaBarkspawn (talk) 15:01, November 3, 2019 (UTC) :::On some reflection, I remembered a trick from elsewhere. Please see https://elderscrolls.fandom.com/wiki/The_Towers#References . On the TES wiki, when we run into things like this, we put that banner over the references that says "Notice: The following are unlicensed references. They are not copyrighted by a ZeniMax Media company, but can still be considered part of The Elder Scrolls lore and are included for completeness." The linked to category says, "The following unlicensed texts are not found in any in-game books, but can still be considered part of The Elder Scrolls lore and are listed here for completeness.". So, perhaps we can copy this solution by marking all of the RPG stuff in a similar way? DaBarkspawn (talk) 15:11, November 3, 2019 (UTC) ::::Aye, I'd accept that as a solution. - 09:27, November 4, 2019 (UTC) ::::I am afraid but this is reserved for information that is considered part of The Elder Scrolls lore, it is simply unlicensed. ::::Here however we have to deal with information that has been declared as non-canon by the publishers themselves. Huge difference. 11:19, November 4, 2019 (UTC) ::::Perhaps we could use something similar to the TES wording. Something like "Notice: The following references are licensed by Bioware but should not be considered canon for lore purposes and are merely included for completeness." Sir Insomnius (talk) 22:40, November 5, 2019 (UTC) :::::Something like that works for me. DaBarkspawn (talk) 23:01, November 5, 2019 (UTC) ::::I should clarify that I support removing all the non-canon references from the Wiki. I was just providing a wording for a compromise entry from before.Sir Insomnius (talk) :It seems eminently obvious to me that the authors have declared its entirety to be non-canon, as DaBarkspawn said of original reading. As for RPG elements surfacing in comics, if BioWare makes some specific thing canon then it is canon solely based on its inclusion in X (e.g. a comic) by BioWare itself, it doesn’t automatically extend canonization to an entire work. Moreover, the language seems particularly clear when they note that they “extrapolate their own stories” from existing canon; the extrapolation from what is canon is not canon, they have definitively said it is not canon, & only what BioWare includes in their own recognized releases is canon. Therefore I’m more than happy to ax everything not also found in a comic or some other official work, although I could live with definitive markers over such content that declare in no uncertain terms that it is not canon. ::I agree with this. As another example, we don't consider anything from Felicia Day's Dragon Age: Redemption series to be canon, but Mark of the Assassin certainly is. That is, Tallis got canonized in exactly the way Ursuul describes above. DaBarkspawn (talk) 02:14, November 11, 2019 (UTC) :I'd feel more comfortable with deleting all Green Ronin information from the wiki if there were some official statement from Bioware on canonicity; they are the more appropriate last word on the subject, IMO. Lacking that, I'd prefer to see any GR RPG references that relate to 'factual' aspects, such as geography, political groups, history and other 'world building' retained and clearly identified as to the source, while removing anything solely to do with the tabletop campaign stories and plots. Theskymoves (talk) 01:45, November 11, 2019 (UTC) At this point the resolution acceptable to the broadest range of people here would be to apply some sort of marker strongly & clearly indicating the non-canon nature of RPG content. The issue is settled at this point & that is the consensus that can be carried out.